"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[SteveII]

NO. I am not trying to "use my beliefs on you". Do whatever you want. Fine, you don't want to be told you are a sinner according to another belief system. I understand that. But the fact is that that belief system exists and you must co-exist with it.

Being told publicly that I'm a sinner is not "coexisting."  It is verbal abuse, and I will not roll over and play dead when treated in such a manner.

Labeling everyone who tries to follow the Bible as best they can as 'hateful' just does not follow. You infer hatred using faulty logic:

1. There are people who believe in God and that the Bible is his revelation (belief is based on many different types of reasons)
2. The Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin
3. I don't believe the Bible or in the concept of sin.
4. Anyone who does goes around telling me that I'm a sinner because of my sexual orientation is hateful.

FTFY.  Stop mis-characterizing my position.

Here's a question. If someone tells you they are a Christian, are you going to assume they are hateful?

I feel badly that your experiences have led you to this conclusion.

You do realize, don't you, that your conduct in this thread is now part of those experiences?  This cannot be undone.

All I have done is 1) pointed out the core issue/belief of Christianity, 2) attempted to explain that it has more to do with the definition of marriage than telling people what they can and can't do, and 3) explained that most accusation leveled at Christians are some combination of mischaractizations, demonizing, straw men, and red herrings. If you have a problem with my conduct, you are simply not capable of having a civil discussion on this topic. 

But who should change a definition older than history itself? 5 people?

Why not?  If one person chooses to use a different definition, I'm fine with that.

What was Obergefell v. Hodges about? A ruling that overturned state-level bans/ballot initiatives/laws on gay marriage. It also struck down portions of DOMA (passed by a veto-proof majority of democratically-elected congressmen/senators). Do we run our country by opinion polls coupled with judicial activists or do we run it according to a democratic process? It's not clear anymore.

I hope you realize that civil rights should never be at the mercy of "democratic process" or majority rule.  What's that line -- something about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?

Yes, all the civil rights advancements have come at the hand of the supreme court...oh, wait, that's not even close to being true.